How can contradiction rule over consistency in biological systematics?
Consistency is fundamental in our discussions about reality, because inconsistency means that we contradict ourselves.
Now, consistency has only two options, ie, two entrances:
1. assuming that objects are real (traditionally called objectivity and nominalism)or
2. assuming that classes are real (traditionally called subjectivity and realism).
Objectivity was explained on a meta-level first by Aristotle, although he was fundamentally inconsistent in assuming that classes are real, an inconsistency Plato solved with his theory of forms.
Subjectivity has, on the contrary, never been explained on a meta-level, but is instead by its proponents claimed to be “natural”.
The only two options for consistency does thus differ in that objectivity refers to the model of Plato’s theory of forms, whereas subjectivity refers to a “naturalness”.
Now, the ”naturalness” of subjectivity did Bertrand Russell show to be paradoxically contradictory about a century ago. This finding means that consistency can only be reached in objectivity. Bertrand Russel did thus falsify subjectivity by demonstrating that it is inconsistent.
Today, we thus know that only objectivity is consistent.
With this background, it is incomprehensible that subjectivity in the form of cladistics presently rules in biological systematics. How can contradiction rule over consistency in biological systematics?
Another contribution to understanding of conceptualization http://menvall.wordpress.com/
2012-11-22 18:00:28
Source:
